Lists tables and views in a PostgreSQL schema (default public) for a given connection, helping agents inspect database structure before running queries.
List tables and views in a schema (default "public").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | No | Schema name; defaults to "public". | |
| connection_id | Yes | Connection id. See list_connections. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and scopes it to one schema, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or whether system tables are included, and mention of views is the only added nuance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, and the default is placed in parentheses where it belongs. It is efficient, though terse enough that it leaves obvious questions unanswered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists and both parameters are fully documented, so for a simple read-only listing the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Only the absence of any permission or scope caveats keeps it from being complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'schema' and 'connection_id' documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the default of "public", adding nothing beyond structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb (list) and resource (tables and views), which cleanly separates it from list_databases, list_schemas and describe_table. It is clear but never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this versus list_schemas or describe_table, nor any prerequisite such as calling list_connections first. The connection_id link to list_connections lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.